An evolutionist has retracted a ‘scientific’ paper and admitted his pro-evolutionary bias:

It was heralded as decisive proof of the theory of evolution. But Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize laureate Jack Szostak now has retracted a major paper that claimed to explain one of the most important questions about the origin of human life.

In 2016, Szostak published a paper claiming he had found a way for ribonucleic acid (RNA) to replicate itself.

Many proponents of evolutionary theory believe RNA was one of the first molecules to develop. However, RNA requires its own enzymes to replicate.

Szostak and others were looking for evidence of “non-enzymatic replication of RNA,” which could supposedly assemble by irradiating materials that would have been present on Earth in an earlier time.

If this could be created, it would show RNA could copy itself and could have evolved before DNA or proteins, bolstering the naturalistic explanation of life’s origins.

However, Szostak recently retracted his paper after colleague Tivoli Olsen couldn’t replicate the findings. Szostak said the debacle was “definitely embarrassing.”

“In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings] … we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments,” Szostak told the publication Retraction Watch.

Of course, that paper is not the only false one about evolution and the beginning of life.

Most academics teach that in violation of the law of bio-genesis, primitive life somehow sprang up.

But what if we allow the impossibility of spontaneous primitive life to have actually occurred? The primitive life would have to die. Part of the reason for this is that even a single-cell is so complex, and so full of various biological subsystems, that scientists have learned that many systems are essentially necessary for life to exist or continue.

Science recognizes that living organisms must be self-contained, eat, digest, and reproduce to continue to exist.Spontaneously alive lined-up amino acids (with other substances coincidentally there) would die because:

1) All living organisms need biological structures such as organelles and membranes. Without a membranous structure, the proteins would ultimately diffuse and destroy the living organism. Living organism must be somewhat self-contained.

2) All living organisms need nourishment and direction. Since randomness would not have created the biological structure known as a DNA-containing nucleus (or some primitive equivalent), the cell would die. Even if it had some type of nucleus to provide direction, the nucleus would have to have come into existence with ability to determine what to eat and how to find food, another impossibility.

3) Even if the cell had all the above, it would die, because there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated a digestive system in order to utilize the food.

4) Even if evolutionists are granted all the improbabilities and impossibilities this article discusses, the primitive life would quickly die out as there would have been no reason for it to have spontaneously generated an ability to reproduce, nor would it have any innate ability to do so.

Evolution is a scientifically impossible explanation of how life began. Since it is impossible, life did not begin that way.

It is in the Bible that we are told that when God made life He intended it to reproduce (Genesis 1:11,28,29).

The idea of an ‘intelligent design’ by a Spirit being is the only explanation that does not defy scientifically provable knowledge–for all other explanations result in something that must die out. And the scientific fact is that evolution as a model for explaining how life began makes no scientific sense.

So, no I do not believe in the “theory of evolution” as a viable explanation of the origin of life. Evolution requires simply too many impossibilities to make sense. And it only takes one impossibility to disprove a theory.